I was watching a body cam video on youtube, where a young woman was pulled over by police, she lies to the cops about having been drinking and driving, and smoking weed, and lies about having any alcohol or drugs in the car, which gets her in more trouble. The cops even continue to try to reason with her after its pretty much confirmed that she’s intoxicated. In the comments they were calling her spoiled for not cooperating.
I’m thinking if its confirmed that someone is under the influence of a substance that significantly reduces impulse control, reduces reasoning, then why are they still held responsible, why isn’t there a protocol where you stop trying to reason with them since you realize they are not cognitively all there at the moment?
You could make the argument that it was their responsibility when they were sober to ensure contingencies to prevent them from engaging in these acts when intoxicated, like having a designated driver, or having supervision. But you can make the same argument when it comes to consenting for sex when intoxicated. Like if a woman goes alone to a mans hotel room to drink wine together, and they end up having sex, then why is she not responsible for going to his hotel room when sober? (I believe this was the same scenario where Mike Tyson was accused of rape).
Further, if someone is intoxicated, can they be held responsible for rape? Like if two people were drinking, neither can consent? Or even if someone who is under some hard hallucinogenic drug that makes them violent and they end up raping someone, they cannot consent to sex, yet I imagine they would be held responsible for their crimes?
Comments
[deleted]
First, with regards to consenting to sex while drunk, drunkeness may not necessarily vitiate consent if one party is drunk. In my jurisdiction, the requirement is that the one person has to be unconscious drunk. If you are too drunk to consent to have sex, you would not be able to physically drive. The conflict you describe could not legally take place in my jurisdiction.
However, if the jurisdiction holds that drunk consent can be vitiated for sex, the issue policy concern is that criminal law prevents someone harming others.. When it comes to drunk driving, the principle is that if you drive drunk, you may hurt others. The policy thus punishes others for making a bad choice which may harm others.
When it comes to sex, it’s the same general idea. The policy behind sex is that you should not have sex with someone if it may harm them. The harm with sex is violating bodily autonomy—having sex without the other person consenting. If a person is drunk, you should realize that they may not be able to properly manage their autonomy. If you have sex with them, you are potentially violating their autonomy. So, if you want to compare the action, you have to compare to the person doing the action. The law prevents people from driving in a way which may harm others, and the law prevents people from having sex in a way which may harm others.
There is no policy that drunk people having sex causes harm to others. The sober person has full autonomy over their actions, so the drunk person is not violating that. A more proper comparison is not comparing them to drunk driver, but to a drunk walker on the street. If you are drunk and walking down the street, you are mostly not responsible if a car drives on the sidewalk and hits you. Sure, you might have acted safer had you been sober, but there is no public policy that people walking home drunk (only walking, not acting disorderly) is a danger to the public. In short, being drunk and having something happen to you for the most part is not something we use criminal law to prevent.
> Or even if someone who is under some hard hallucinogenic drug that makes them violent and they end up raping someone, they cannot consent to sex, yet I imagine they would be held responsible for their crimes?
In one of the more controversial decisions in Canada, the defence of self-induced intoxication is possible if the intoxication is so severe that they cannot possibly form the intent required to commit the offence.
If we allowed intoxication to be exculpatory, than all one would have to do to get away with murder is to get hammered first.
Unfortunately, there are often creeps trying to take sexual advantage of drunks. It’s that element of coercion and taking advantage of the situation that’s different.